NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I've come up with the answer.
Seeing as I'm neither old or intelligent or have a mighty beard I cannot back my views up at all with big scientific and/or mathematical equations, but I will give you my view anywho:

Creationism. A bizzare concept to say the least. We were put here by God. But it's been proven that we evolved from animals. So God must have put animals on this planet before us. Yet animals have evolved from single celled lifeforms, so they must've existed first. If God put Earth here, and created the entire solar system, with all of its galaxies and stars and planets and whatnot then surely it's understandable to say that God created single celled lifeforms.
However, if God created single-celled lifeforms, which then became animals, which then became humans... how was God created?
At this point, we could deduct that perhaps God is a single celled lifeform, and that he/she did indeed start off existence through whatever means. But surely that's not a satisfactory answer?
The standard belief of religion is that God was there in the beginning, here at the moment and will be there at our mortal end. Yet religions deny the concept of evolution by stating that the big-bang can't possibly of happened, as it can't have just been there, someone or something must've put it there. Science has also stated that something cannot come from nothing, so if the big-bang can come from nothing then surely neither can God? This is the case.
So what does that leave? We follow a particular religion and leave it at that. We accept that we weren't created by a 'God' and leave it. Or we try to find out more, and delve further into the problem.
So my theory is, another dimension, or something of that caliber. But before you all dub me a madman and leave the topic, hear me out.
It has neither been proven nor disproven by maths or science that another dimension could exist, and scientists have not completely ruled the possibility of one. Now, if we cannot discover whether or not there is another dimension or not, then clearly we cannot even begin to fathom what these beings would be capable of.
Thus, my theory is, that there is another dimension that contains beings which can create themselves, and create something from nothing, and thus created themselves, and possibly us, or at least the big-bang.

Yeah, I'm a madman.

Nice theory...here's mine.
Time is relative, or so we're told. Now, if we follow the Big Bang theory it says that the universe exploded outward thusly spreading matter etc throughout...everywhere. Now, if something explodes outwards, at somepoint the gravitational weight of that initial explosion will begin drawing everything back toward itself. This collection of material colliding together would provide the impetus for a further explosion, thusly another Big Bang. Therefore the Big Bang which created life, the universe and everything is actually the end of everything and vice versa.

Nice theory...here's mine.
Time is relative, or so we're told. Now, if we follow the Big Bang theory it says that the universe exploded outward thusly spreading matter etc throughout...everywhere. Now, if something explodes outwards, at somepoint the gravitational weight of that initial explosion will begin drawing everything back toward itself. This collection of material colliding together would provide the impetus for a further explosion, thusly another Big Bang. Therefore the Big Bang which created life, the universe and everything is actually the end of everything and vice versa.
Explosions do not have "weight" only mass does … and only within a gravitational field
Though that does not rule out the cyclic possibility but your reasoning for why it is cyclic is a bit off

Explosions do not have "weight" only mass does … and only within a gravitational field
Though that does not rule out the cyclic possibility but your reasoning for why it is cyclic is a bit off
OK, so I wrote it a bit too quickly...I was meant to include stuff about what was possibly in the centre of the universe (possibly a supersize star, or a planetary body, or some other form of anamoly, which might even be created in the future by civilisations unknown as a massive powersource...who knows! ;) )...but I didn't, whoops!

We were put here by God. God was like a sort of small industry heavy haulage contractor for Time. Time wanted to spread some spores and let them grow. They grew and spread and eventually populated most of the world as animals: cold, vicious, territorial animals. They were preceded by monkeys and dinosaurs and so forth, but essentially they're just bit-part players in the Horror Movie that is Mankind.

You know it's true. :)

Well, my theory?

Religion and science don't mix. It's just that simple. Religion deals in the intangible, stuff we cannot see, cannot touch, stuff that exists only in our minds, or souls or whatever you want to call it. Religion cannot be proven by physical fact, no matter how hard some "religious scientists" try to prove it. The religious, or spiritual amongst us should just accept that the supreme power we believe in is beyond us, and we will never have evidence that can be repeated.

Science, on the other hand deals in absolutes. Science is supposed to tell us the mechanics of the physical, tangible universe. The stuff we can feel and see and stuff. And science should never delve into the bottomless pit of religion where there is no actual proof for or against. I mean, we typically admit that there are intangible things out there, the mind is considered one of these things. We cannot observe the mind, but we all feel it's influence. That's why many psychologists refuse to work with the concept of the mind, as it can be neither proven or disproven.

Philosophy is similar to religion. It deals with stuff that is unquatifiable. Just like religion.

My theory, science and religion are both bullsh!t.
They make nice stories about how the universe was created but I am not buying any of it.

My theory, science and religion are both bullsh!t.
They make nice stories about how the universe was created but I am not buying any of it.

And so instead your view is...?

If you're not going to swing either science or religion what the hell are you going to do? Wait, I forgot... you started off humanity didn't you?

And if you're going to swear, swear like a man. We don't need any of this bullsh!t. Just come straight out and say bullshit.

My theory, science and religion are both bullsh!t.
They make nice stories about how the universe was created but I am not buying any of it.

Right on. I believe in philosophy, myself.

So my theory is, another dimension, or something of that caliber. But before you all dub me a madman and leave the topic, hear me out.
It has neither been proven nor disproven by maths or science that another dimension could exist, and scientists have not completely ruled the possibility of one. Now, if we cannot discover whether or not there is another dimension or not, then clearly we cannot even begin to fathom what these beings would be capable of.
Thus, my theory is, that there is another dimension that contains beings which can create themselves, and create something from nothing, and thus created themselves, and possibly us, or at least the big-bang.

Yeah, I'm a madman.

The problem with that comes in the first sentence - "there exists another dimension."

Another dimension is not doublespeak for "anything is possiblse."

We say space has N dimensions because you need N coordinates to specify the position of an object relative to another - you can use the distances along some vectors, or angles, or some combination of the two. An additional dimension merely means that a point can move in one additional direction. Traditional space has three dimensions - you need three numbers to indicate the position of a point. Spacetime has four dimensions - you need four numbers to specify a position. String theory with it's [9, 10, or 11, or however many] dimensions merely means that there are that many more coordinates necessary to specify the position of a point, and that need to be taken into account when calculating distances.

Claiming that "there's an additional dimension where ..." is fairly nonsensical - it can be a separate universe with a different dimensionality. ...but that's kind of a pointless assumption, in my view - we can't even claim to know the laws of our universe, why are we invoking a different one? There ARE things in our universe that occur spontaneously, on the quantum level.

Claiming that "There's another dimension/universe ... that created us" is no different than saying "God created us" or "The Big Bang created us." Or at least so it seems to me.

Yeah, I'm a madman.
Yes, but that would be ok if you understood abiogenesis. I heavily recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins for anyone who's interested in evolution. That book is where biomorphs originated in the scientifically, and there have been many simulations for biomorphs in relation to evolution for those who know.

Right on. I believe in philosophy, myself.

Philosophy can create nice stories too, but in the end they are all just that...stories and I am not buying any of it.

Philosophy can create nice stories too, but in the end they are all just that...stories and I am not buying any of it.
What if the stories exist for you to not-buy?

My theory: Allah is Time and Thought itself. He is There, yet he is not. He is sentient and Almighty. He started the Big Bang having everything to go by his plan. It spun into motion with the Big Bang and everything went into motion. We're just one dot on his plan for Everything.

What if the stories exist for you to not-buy?

I am still not buying any of it.

I am still not buying any of it.
Then you're playing right into their hands! *evil pinky smirk*

Philosophy can create nice stories too, but in the end they are all just that...stories and I am not buying any of it.

What do you believe, then?

What do you believe, then?

Nothing. By what I mean by "Nothing" is not something bad or anything like that. Its sort of that feeling you get when you walk into an empty room or look at a unpainted canvas or that blank page in your journal. That's all I truly know, what is unformed and uncompounded, anything else is commentary or nice stories or if I wish to be rude - bullshit.

I just believe that the universe wasn't 'created', it has always been, and always will. It may expand and contract, thus explaining Big Bang and Crunch theories. But just because we are born, and then we die, that is no reason to assume that everything must have a beginning and an end.

Nothing. By what I mean by "Nothing" is not something bad or anything like that. Its sort of that feeling you get when you walk into an empty room or look at a unpainted canvas or that blank page in your journal. That's all I truly know, what is unformed and uncompounded, anything else is commentary or nice stories or if I wish to be rude - bullshit.
That be Nihilism alright.

That be Nihilism alright.

Oh, yes it is. :D

That be Nihilism alright.
Sounds more like Zen Buddhism to me.

Nothing. By what I mean by "Nothing" is not something bad or anything like that. Its sort of that feeling you get when you walk into an empty room or look at a unpainted canvas or that blank page in your journal. That's all I truly know, what is unformed and uncompounded, anything else is commentary or nice stories or if I wish to be rude - bullshit.

So you literally don't believe in anything? Isn't that itself a belief?

The big crunch hasn't been proved like the big bang, in fact it seems improbable.

Evolutionism hasn't been proven, although even to a Christian like me it seems reasonable.

Before Stephen Hawking proved the Big Bang, Steady State theory existed, that is the universe already was, and was forever.

The Big Bang was hated by the science community because it created room for God in science.

So much room that he hasn't left since.

So you literally don't believe in anything? Isn't that itself a belief?

Precisely. Such is the paradoxical nature of the universe, to even beleive in nothing , one must believe in something. I see myself as a person of great faith too, even though I don't believe in gods.

Here's a scale of knowledge/belief/not-quite-sure-what-to-call-it.

Doesn't exist ------ Might exist, might not --------- Does exist

People start their assumptions from different points on this scale.

Some start with the assumption that nothing exists until it is proven, and it is a leap of faith to believe something exists without evidence to support it

Some start from the middle of the scale, where they require proof of something's (non)existence. For them, it is just as much of a leap of faith to declare that something definitely doesn't exist, as it is to say that it definitely does exist, without evidence to support the claim.

This difference in frame of reference causes huge problems...

Religion and science don't mix. It's just that simple. Religion deals in the intangible, stuff we cannot see, cannot touch, stuff that exists only in our minds, or souls or whatever you want to call it. Religion cannot be proven by physical fact, no matter how hard some "religious scientists" try to prove it. The religious, or spiritual amongst us should just accept that the supreme power we believe in is beyond us, and we will never have evidence that can be repeated.

The problem with this is that if all religion is what you believe in and religion exists only in your mind, then you are reducing all religion to solipsism.


Science, on the other hand deals in absolutes. Science is supposed to tell us the mechanics of the physical, tangible universe. The stuff we can feel and see and stuff. And science should never delve into the bottomless pit of religion where there is no actual proof for or against. I mean, we typically admit that there are intangible things out there, the mind is considered one of these things. We cannot observe the mind, but we all feel it's influence. That's why many psychologists refuse to work with the concept of the mind, as it can be neither proven or disproven.

Science works with concepts such as gravity, space-time continuum, electrons and other sub atomic particles. Now I don't know about you but I have never seen any of these, nor have I been aware of picking any of them up. They are not exactly physical, tangible parts of the universe.

Philosophy is similar to religion. It deals with stuff that is unquatifiable. Just like religion.

What then is philosophy of science? or logic? or political philosophy? OK metaphysics, epistemology and ontology could be so characterisewd, but I don't see how it applies to philosophy as a whole.

Oh. I'm with RAH "God split himself into myriad pieces so that He might have friends" ;)

Here's my theory: I'm not the world's leading expert on cosmology. Neither are you. Therefore, we are not going to get anywhere with this discussion.

To old-fashioned Creationists: Get a life, bimbo.

My answer to IDists: Putting him in a place you think that science can't go doesn't make him any less non-existent. You are running out of places to hide. Be afraid. Be very afraid {insert cartoonishly evil cackle here}.

The problem with this is that if all religion is what you believe in and religion exists only in your mind, then you are reducing all religion to solipsism.
Religion is what a person does in relation to God. So while it is about self, it is not necessarily denying non-self in any way.

Science works with concepts such as gravity, space-time continuum, electrons and other sub atomic particles. Now I don't know about you but I have never seen any of these, nor have I been aware of picking any of them up. They are not exactly physical, tangible parts of the universe.
But particles have mass, or at least are assumed to, no?

Oh. I'm with RAH "God split himself into myriad pieces so that He might have friends" ;)
There is one god, and he is the Sun God, Rah! Rah!

Religion and science don't mix. It's just that simple. Religion deals in the intangible, stuff we cannot see, cannot touch, stuff that exists only in our minds, or souls or whatever you want to call it. Religion cannot be proven by physical fact, no matter how hard some "religious scientists" try to prove it. The religious, or spiritual amongst us should just accept that the supreme power we believe in is beyond us, and we will never have evidence that can be repeated.
The problem with this is that if all religion is what you believe in and religion exists only in your mind, then you are reducing all religion to solipsism.
I agree with Andaluciae with my own philosophy. For me, at least, it is not about solipsism at all, but about perspective.

Mind is something only the individual consciousness can experience for itself, from an entirely subjective perspective. Others are excluded from experiencing this one person's mind; this doesn't mean he denies the existence of others. Similarly, religion is the relationship an individual consciousness creates with the creator. Whether or not the creator is objectively real, it is still entirely possible to create a relationship with it, as this happens entirely subjectively.

Nice theory...here's mine.
Time is relative, or so we're told. Now, if we follow the Big Bang theory it says that the universe exploded outward thusly spreading matter etc throughout...everywhere. Now, if something explodes outwards, at somepoint the gravitational weight of that initial explosion will begin drawing everything back toward itself. This collection of material colliding together would provide the impetus for a further explosion, thusly another Big Bang. Therefore the Big Bang which created life, the universe and everything is actually the end of everything and vice versa.
Interesting, but the problem now is that it's been conclusively proven that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Sorry, but it's the "heat death" for us all.

Interesting, but the problem now is that it's been conclusively proven that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Sorry, but it's the "heat death" for us all.
Hmmm and here I thought they had just prove a lack of visiable mass to allow for a contraction ... (I.E. Dark matter theory)

Hmmm and here I thought they had just prove a lack of visiable mass to allow for a contraction ... (I.E. Dark matter theory)
Add "dark energy" to your list of "dark things." :)

The problem with this is that if all religion is what you believe in and religion exists only in your mind, then you are reducing all religion to solipsism.

I'm saying that there can never been any tangible proof of religion, it will only ever exist in the mind. Something that is so infinitely personal that science cannot even prove it's existence.

And I guess that I might just be reducing all religion to a form of solipsism. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Science works with concepts such as gravity, space-time continuum, electrons and other sub atomic particles. Now I don't know about you but I have never seen any of these, nor have I been aware of picking any of them up. They are not exactly physical, tangible parts of the universe.

I should be more clear then, you can detect or mathematically prove their existence.

What then is philosophy of science? or logic? or political philosophy? OK metaphysics, epistemology and ontology could be so characterisewd, but I don't see how it applies to philosophy as a whole.

Ok, I admit I was wrong on this, there are types of philosophy that are more than just inside the mind.

Add "dark energy" to your list of "dark things." :)
Yeah I was thinking about gravitational theory ... so mostly mass but yes energy supposedly has a "dark" equivelent